Livelihood system perspective

The study places food security in a livelihood systems context, in which food security is seen as a major outcome of livelihood generation by households.

Experts have argued that food security is but one element of livelihood security and that indicators of the former should not be interpreted independent of a good understanding of the latter (Maxwell, 1996; Chambers, 1989; Maxwell and Smith, 1992; Davies, 1993; Frankenberger and Coyle, 1993). A recent Philippine study revealed that people may be food secure with a secure livelihood but not necessarily nutrient secure (Balatibat, 2004).

Whether outcome or element, it is asserted here that food security is

understood and assessed more meaningfully, and clearly, if seen from a liveli-hood systems’ perspective. The word “outcome” stresses and presupposes the existence of processes critical to whether or not food security is achieved.

This thesis holds the livelihood systems approach as fundamental in order to understand the interrelations between the physical natural environ-ments, the socio-economic environenviron-ments, and the internal environment of the household. In this context, the livelihood systems perspective applied to the small farming household recognizes the multiplicity of activities (farm, off-farm, non-farm) that the household pursues to provide for income and food that will satisfy the other material needs, and conditions the satisfaction of non-material needs (Niehof, 2004). Indeed the movement away from the farm is evident in the rural communities and the conventionally called ‘farming households’ are actually decision units of multi-activities. The pathway to the betterment of these households can no longer be simply taken in terms of agriculture but in terms of a system of opportunities and choices including non-farm livelihoods. This approach moves away from the “agriculture first”

strategy that was dominant before the 1980’s where emphasis was on farming as the means towards rural development and poverty reduction (Mellor, 1991).

Livelihood: a definition

The dictionary defines livelihood as “work done to earn a living” (Encarta) and is, therefore, not merely reflective of the outcomes such as income or consumption of which it is aimed. Importantly, processes are embedded in the concept and these refer to the ways in which a living is obtained. Niehof and Price (2001) distinguish livelihood (i.e. the material means whereby one lives) from livelihood generation (i.e. the process where the mix of activities that people undertake provides for their needs). The concept of livelihood includes what people do with their assets and resources, how they allocate such resources, and what they achieve by doing it. They further stressed the importance of distinguishing between activities, resources and assets from processes and outcomes. The flows or stocks of income and food (i.e. outputs) result from the process of livelihood generation. Livelihood generation implies action being undertaken in a multifaceted and dynamic system.

Chambers (1989) specifies the adequacy of stocks and flows of food and cash to meet basic needs, and defines livelihood as comprising the

“capabilities, assets (i.e. stores, resources, claims and access), and activities required for a means of living”. Adopted by many researchers using a rural livelihoods approach, this features the links between assets and the alternative activities people can adopt to obtain the income needed for survival. As derived from Sen, the term “capabilities” refers to the ability of individuals to realize their potentials as human beings (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Sen, 1993, 1997; Scoones, 1998).

Ellis, however, argued that the use of “capabilities” is potentially confusing because of the overlap with assets and activities which tend to blur process and outcome. Capabilities both influence and are influenced by personal and household livelihood strategies as they evolve. Thus, Ellis

defines livelihood as comprising “the assets (e.g. natural, physical, human, financial and social), the activities and the access to these, which is mediated by institutions and social relations, that together determine the living gained by the individual or household” (Ellis, 2000:10). On the other hand, assets are not only means but also give meaning to individuals, and thus, build capabilities and capacities which of themselves help create assets further. Such a process of asset and resource accumulation of individuals and households can challenge existing structures and pave the way for change or improvement. These assets build-ups pave the way to improvements of access and could affect the decision-making on the mix of activities or livelihoods (Bebbington, 1999; Ellis, 2000). However articulated, the composite of assets and resources, activities to obtain the means for living, and the access to all these, are common threads in the understanding of livelihoods and their generation.

The desired output is livelihood security where the household provides for its members’ needs in a sustainable manner. Livelihood failures make a household vulnerable to income and food insecurity. Although livelihood security is a precondition to food security, the former does not necessarily translate into nutrition security because of such factors as gender (i.e.

women’s control of income more likely to improve nutrition), sanitation, hygiene, potable water, care and morbidity (Chambers, 1989; Quisumbing, 2003: Balatibat, 2004). Wheatley (1998:4-5), citing WCED (World Com-mission on Environment and Development), defines sustainable livelihood as

“adequate reserves and supplies of food and cash to meet basic needs”. He says further explicitly that “sustainable livelihood can be assured through stable employment with adequate remuneration, engagement in productive activities which are ecologically sustainable and economically sound, ownership of or access to resources and their management, within their capacity to recover”. He stressed the importance of value-adding farm-based enterprises within a sustainable agro-ecological system.

Chambers (1989) describes sustainability as the ability to maintain and improve livelihoods while maintaining or enhancing the assets and capabilities on which livelihoods depend. Vulnerability has to do with not having enough assets and the inability to create, maintain, or secure a livelihood (Swift, 1989). The livelihood then generated is not adequate and cannot be maintained in the long run. Sustainable livelihoods can withstand stresses and shocks and are able to bounce back when affected, while vulnerable livelihoods cannot cope with stress and shocks without being damaged. Vulnerable households have problems in providing for their members’ basic needs, are unable to create a surplus, and often are chronically in debt (Niehof and Price, 2001).

Assets include a number of components, some of economic categories of different types of capital, and other non-economic types such as claims and access (Chambers and Conway, 1992). With this overarching definition, the question is which types of capital or stock can be legitimately included.

Followers defined what to be included such as Scoones (1998) who included

five types of capital: natural, physical, human, financial and social capital.

These same types are also adopted by Ellis (2000).

Access is defined by the rules and social norms that determine the differential ability of people to own, control, otherwise claim, or make use of resources such as land and common property. It is also defined by the impact of social relations (e.g. gender, class), and is also referred to as the ability to participate in and derive benefits from, social and public services such as education, health services, roads, water supply, technology, etc. Ellis (2000) modified Chambers and Conway (1992) by stressing the importance of the notion of access and the impact of social relations (i.e. gender, family, kin, class, caste, ethnicity, belief system) and institutions that affect an individual or family’s capacity to achieve its income or consumption requirements.

Social and kinship networks are essential for facilitating and sustaining diverse income portfolios (Berry, 1989; 1993; Hart, 1995; Bryceson, 1996).

Also, social norms on permissible courses of action by women can spell a big difference to the livelihood options among women as compared to those of men (Dwyer and Bruce, 1988; Davies and Hossain, 1997; Niehof, 2004).

Institutions are also critical to access since they are ingrained patterns of behavior which are structured by the rules of society, have widespread use, and thus help shape human interaction. They determine the way markets work (including the degree of trust), local rules of access to community resources (grazing and forest), land tenure and security to tenure (Carswell, 1997; Leach et al., 1997; Ellis, 2000).

Livelihood portfolio and strategies

Alternative livelihood activities (i.e. farm, off-farm and non-farm) open to households are diverse to a limited or wider degree, depending on the assets, resources, and the environment of opportunities (i.e. access included). This resource-using mix of activities that households engage in in order to earn a living for various ends (e.g. adequate food, clothing, shelter; better education, save for enterprise) is called the “livelihood portfolio”. (Ellis, 2000; Niehof and Price, 2001). In different situations and for various reasons, rural households have increasingly maintained a diverse set of livelihoods (i.e.

some permanent, some transitory; all transitory or seasonal). Rural livelihood diversification has become a strategy of households in order to survive and improve their standard of living (Ellis, 2000; Reardon et al., 2001; Niehof, 2004). It also has become a rural development strategy in the last two decades moving away from the purist view on agriculture as the main development vehicle. In this study, the concept of livelihood portfolio is the basis for the definition of “livelihood type” which is used to characterize households, and also as a variable used in various analyses.

The diversity of livelihoods carries with it different sets of relations in the social, economic and political arena. The related factors and pressures that go with the process cause households to adopt even more varying livelihood strategies. In many cases, a rural community with highly diversified livelihoods figures a decreasing proportion of income contributed by farming

and reflects the increasing importance of non-farm contribution (Pender, 1997;

Reardon, 1997; Ellis, 2000).

The various ways or processes (i.e. using skills and capacities to use/manage assets/ resources in certain ways) to generate livelihood is referred to as “livelihood strategies” (Niehof and Price, 2001). This term can be used rather loosely. Its use here supposes at least some amount of awareness, among the income-asset contributors and decision-makers, of what action to take. There may be discussion between household members, who may or may not agree but are at least are dimly aware of what others wish to pursue. It is helpful to note that strategies (i.e. in the sense of logical choices) are not the only stimuli to action; people get by, or may act impulsively or irrationally (Anderson et al., 1994; Pennartz and Niehof, 1999). Human beings can be rational or otherwise, and this also bears on the analysis and understanding of livelihood strategies.

Livelihood strategies may be adaptive or coping strategies. Adaptive strategies are long-term or permanent changes households or individuals make to acquire adequate food or income, while coping strategies are fall back mechanisms to deal with short-term inadequacy of food (Davies, 1993).

Adaptive strategies could include out-migration to town or cities for some permanent non-farm work, cropping patterns fitted to season or land-suitability criteria, or education of children. Coping strategies are livelihood strategies which are aimed at dealing with recurrent, hence foreseeable, situations of stress. Coping strategy, as strategy, should be distinguished from coping per se. When people or households are just coping, they try to manage a stressful event or situation for which they could not prepare (Boss, 1988). In relation to food security, coping strategy refers to the short-term response to an immediate and uncommon decline in access to food (Davies, 1993). Thus, coping strategies may be either seasonal coping strategies (e.g. production, diet); cultivating social relationships (e.g. patron-client relationships, gift-giving for later food assistance); diversifying income and food sources (e.g.

off-farm or non-farm work, family support, wild foods); drawing on stores or assets by selling or mortgaging (Longhurst, 1986, 1988).

Livelihood approach

Using the above definition of livelihood and the related concepts on livelihood portfolio and livelihood strategies, a livelihood approach is adopted in this study. This approach departs from the conventional mainstream economic approach to rural poverty reduction and food security concerns. The latter uses the growth linkage model as the way out of rural poverty and achieving food security by means of increasing agriculture productivity. In turn, this stimulates the growth of rural non-farm activities through the linkage effect of increasing farm outputs and incomes. The usual starting point of analysis is the farm or rural economy. Agriculture-led rural development approaches search for patterns of cause and effect with universal applicability in order to identify and prioritize policies and projects. In the livelihood approach, the focus of analysis is the household and with greater emphasis on process in

addition to a consideration of outcomes. Strategies are decided through a process that takes place within households, with decisions bearing on their circumstances which may be in conflict with agricultural productivity considerations. The livelihood approach does not necessarily seek nor require cause-effect patterns of wider applicability. Poverty reduction or food security initiatives need to fit or be adapted to support the households’ own circumstances and livelihood strategies. Wider applicability is sought but not limited by such requirement (Mellor, 1991; Ellis, 2000).

In the livelihood approach, the focus of analysis is neither sector nor commodity-oriented but takes households or individuals with diverse liveli-hoods and incomes as key features. It is not premised on a single-chain causality linking farm productivity and rural development or poverty. At the start, it recognizes the complexity in dealing with livelihoods, and thus, the options and strategies particularly of the poor farming households need to be understood in totality of their circumstances (Ellis, 2000). This study views the livelihood approach as a useful framework since the challenges and opportunities among the rural populace in contemporary times are more than just agriculture, which many are wont to leave.